Brief Re Use of Videotaped Excerpts Service

Brief

Cal. Super. - 5th Dist.August 26, 2014

T H E H O M A M P O U R L A W F I R M A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 1 5 3 0 3 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D - S U I T E 1 4 5 0 S H E R M A N O A K S C A L I F O R N I A © 1 4 0 3 P H O N E ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 0 7 7 * F A X ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 4 7 7 W N Oo 0 9 O N Wn 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE HOMAMPOUR LAW FIRM A Professional Law Corporation ARASH HOMAMPOUR (State Bar No. 165407) ARMINE SAFARIAN (State Bar No. 270437) 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1450 E-FILED Sherman Oaks, California 91403 8/14/2018 5:49 PM Phone: (323) 658-8077 | Fax: (323) 658-8477 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT LAW OFFICES OF RAUL G. LOMAS By: K. Daves, Deputy RAUL G. LOMAS (State Bar No.106686) 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 620 Pasadena, California 91101 Phone: (626) 792-9666 | Fax: (626) 792-0304 Attorneys for Plaintiff ARACELI CASTELLANO ZUNIGA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO CASE NO.: 15CECG02779 PLAINTIFEF’S BRIEF RE USE OF ARACELI CASTELLANO ZUNIGA, | ) VIDEOTAPED EXCERPTS OF ) 2) Plaintiff, VS. DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DURING TRIAL CHERRY AVENUE AUCTION, INC. California corporation, PACIFIC GAS &) TRC Date: August 12,2018 ELECTRIC (PG & E"), a California) corporation; W.D. & M.S. MITCHELL) Trial Date: August 20,2018 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Texas) Time: 9:00 a.m. entity, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Dept.: 502 Defendants. J Complaint filed on August 26, 2014 Case Assigned to Judge Black, Dept. 502 TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Plaintiff hereby files her brief on the issue of Plaintiff being permitted to use the videotaped excerpts of Defendants’ experts’ depositions during trial (opening, Plaintiff’s case in chief, etc.) Plaintiff will incur considerable expense to comply with their statutory right to videotape Defendants’ expert witnesses’ depositions and then to use excerpts of those videotapes throughout trial. Plaintiff’s Brief re Use of Videotaped Excerpts of Defendants’ Experts During Trial - Page 1 T H E H O M A M P O U R L A W F I R M A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 1 5 3 0 3 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D - S U I T E 1 4 5 0 S H E R M A N O A K S C A L I F O R N I A © 1 4 0 3 P H O N E ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 0 7 7 * F A X ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 4 7 7 W N Oo 0 9 O N Wn 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Under C.C.P. Section 2034.310(a), any party may elicit opinion testimony at trial from an expert designated by any other party, so long as that expert has been deposed. Powell v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 441,444; Salasguevara v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 379, 387. In Powell, the Court of Appeal held that, under C.C.P. Section 2034(m) (predecessor to Section 2034.310), the Plaintiff could call as a witness a doctor designated by the defendant even though the plaintiff had not properly listed him as plaintiff’s expert. Section 2034.310 provides that: A party may call as a witness at trial an expert not previously designated toy that party if either of the following conditions is satisfied: (a) that expert has been designated by another party and has thereafter been deposed. . ." Under C.C.P. §§ 2025.340(m) and 2025.620(d), Plaintiff can show the jury excerpts from the videotaped deposition of Defendants’ experts during opening and his case in chief, even if the expert is available to testify later on during Defendants’ case in chief. C.C.P. Section 2025.620(d) provides that “Any party may use a video recording of the deposition testimony of a treating or consulting physician or of any expert witness even though the deponent is available to testify if the deposition notice under Section 2025.220 reserved the right to use the deposition at trial, and if that party has complied with subdivision (m) of Section 2025.340.” Plaintiff will have fully complied with §§ 2025.340(m) and 2025.620(d) providing to Defendants all notice required when the transcripts are received (they have not yet been.) Therefore, Plaintiffs should be permitted to use the videotaped excerpts throughout trial. DATED: August 14, 2018 Arash Homampour, Armine Safarian, Attorneys for Plaintiff, ARACELI CASTELLANO ZUNIGA Plaintiff’s Brief re Use of Videotaped Excerpts of Defendants’ Experts During Trial - Page 2 T H E H O M A M P O U R L A W F I R M A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N I 5 30 3 VE NT UR A B O U L E V A R D - SU IT E | 4 50 S H E R M A N O A K S C A L I F O R N I A © 1 4 0 3 P H O N E ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 0 7 7 * F A X ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 4 7 7 W N Oo 0 9 O N Wn 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1450, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. On August 14, 2018, I served the following document(s) described as PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF RE USE OF VIDEOTAPED EXCERPTS OF DEFENDANTS' EXPERTS DURING TRIAL on the interested parties in said action, by placing the [J original to the BEOpONNGIng party a true copy thereof to all other parties enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST OJ BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully paid. VI BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overni ght delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses on August 14, 2018. 1 placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regular utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers fisted on August 14, 2018. No error was reported by the fax machine that used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. Od BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered the document to the Law Firm listed on August 14, 2018. Ny BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (EMAIL): Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification addresses listed on August 14, 2018. STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 1s true and correct. Executed on August 14, 2018 at Sherman Oaks, California. Coelec (Bry — — CECILIA, CHAVEZ — Proof of Service - Page 1 T H E H O M A M P O U R L A W F I R M A P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N I 5 30 3 VE NT UR A B O U L E V A R D - SU IT E | 4 50 S H E R M A N O A K S C A L I F O R N I A © 1 4 0 3 P H O N E ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 0 7 7 * F A X ( 3 2 3 ) 6 5 8 - 8 4 7 7 W N Oo 0 9 O N Wn 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Zuniga v. Cherry Avenue Auction, Inc., et al. Case No. I5CECG02779 (as of August 14, 2018) John W. Beebe, Esq. Hollingshead & Associates 3880 Atherton Road Rocklin, CA 95765 Fax: (916) 630-3848 Email: jbeebe@wedefend.com Raul G. Lomas, Esq. Law Offices of Raul G. Lomas 234 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 620 Pasadena, CA 91101 Fax: (626) 792-0306 Email: Lomaslaw@sbcglobal.net XI Attorneys for Defendant Cherry Avenue Auction, Inc. and W.D & M.S. Mitchell Family Limited Partnership; and Kinsman Enterprises, LLC Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Proof of Service - Page 2